Announcement

YesTor · 30 July 2016, 03:23

Hmmm, looks quite nice, although a couple of things leap out:

1. It seems to suffer from the same issue as Bachmann's 66 in that the loco appears to slump forward and sit far too low on its bogies.

2. I was rather hoping that Dapol would figure out a way of re-arranging the front end so that the cowling did not have to be removed completely in order to fit tension lock/Kadee style couplings. Instead they've simply opted for the same arrangement as Bachmann's 66. To my eye a 59 or 66 without that front cowling just doesn't look like a 59/66. Hugely disappointing.

3. Some of the underframe piping and add-ons appear a bit 'chunky', particularly around the fuel tank area and on the bogies.

4. Moulded bodyside grilles - would have been nice to be able to achieve that 'see through' effect, similar to Hornby's Class 60.

5. Lack of handrails on the solebar just below cab doors.

Regards

JeremiahBunyan · 30 July 2016, 06:09

Hello Andy,

It seems my gut feelings were right. And I'm so please to see these EP samples. Now all I have to see is the livery samples and I can decide which one to buy (i.e I'm more of a collector than modeler). The model looks superb!!! I do think there can be two improvements made and I've listed them below:-

I also think the model will benefit from etched grilles, but not too fussy.
I think there should be another cow catcher/snow plough with a slot for running with a coupling. But again not fussy and I'd be happy doing some modelling.

All in all, it's an excellent model and I'd surely be getting one for the collection.

I'll probably buy a Class 59 most similar to a Class 66 in my eyes and change the bogies (as I don't think the Bachmann Class 66 is upto par). And I must also point out, I think the wipers have been executed exceptionally well.

LaGrange · 30 July 2016, 14:14

A few observations. I know this is the 1st sample and changes can be done.

The 59/0 cab - I take it this is for 59003 in its current GBRF guise with its bigger LED marker lights. Looks good

Bogies - They dont look 'heavy' enough, EMD bogies are massively over-engineered - dare I say it, look at the Lima 59 bogies to compare

Underframe - the underframe on these is an 'exoskeleton' ie a lot of the cables etc are visible - id have thought that all the cables would be moulded separately but only some of them are. Be worth the effort to have separate detail for the whole length.

Needs etched grilles too, they look great on the Dapol 73 so keep it going!

Re front skirts with cut-outs for the couplings, look at the Murphy Models 201 class, needs the same approach

YesTor · 30 July 2016, 15:31

Originally posted by LaGrange View Post

Bogies - They dont look 'heavy' enough, EMD bogies are massively over-engineered - dare I say it, look at the Lima 59 bogies to compare.

Agreed. While the Lima bogies lack fine detail they do in fact capture the sheer bulk/weight rather well.

Originally posted by LaGrange View Post

Underframe - the underframe on these is an 'exoskeleton' ie a lot of the cables etc are visible - id have thought that all the cables would be moulded separately but only some of them are. Be worth the effort to have separate detail for the whole length.

Agreed totally. Another major downfall of the Bachmann 66, and another reason why I've now stopped buying any more. The external cabling/wiring is a major feature of the prototype, and while I can see the potential complexity in modelling this feature, as LaGrang states it really would make this a first class effort if it could be achieved.

Originally posted by LaGrange View Post

Re front skirts with cut-outs for the couplings, look at the Murphy Models 201 class, needs the same approach

Agreed. Additionally, look at the Hornby Class 60 - okay different prototype but same effect achieved by producing two separate cowlings - one that enables plugging couplings into the NEM socket and one that doesn't (for the perfect display model).

Originally posted by LaGrange View Post

Needs etched grilles too, they look great on the Dapol 73 so keep it going!

Agreed. Again look at Hornby's Class 60 and its undeniable just how much this adds to the overall look; and again a distinctive feature of the 59 (and the 66 - which Bachmann also fail to reproduce), so if anything like that can be achieved it would really make a difference.

YesTor · 30 July 2016, 15:35

Originally posted by JeremiahBunyan

Hi YesTor,

Found this picture and many more online. Seems to sit accurately in terms ride height on it's bogies. (Unless I've misunderstood your post)
http://www.kentrail.org.uk/Class%2059%20Drax.jpg
http://www.traintesting.com/images/5...2019-10-06.jpg
http://images.on-this.website/21199_...6e16d366b1.jpg

Looking at this photograph https://digest.dapol.co.uk/filedata/fetch?photoid=2048 and it clearly appears as though the left side is definitely not level. Okay, I understand that the model is viewed at an angle and also the front bogie is turned inward slightly, but nevertheless, the axle closest to the bufferbeam (on both ends in fact) appears to sit closer to the underframe than any of the other axles, which to my eye suggests that this suffers from exactly the same issue as almost every Bachmann 66 I have purchased, whereby the model appears to be slumped forward on its bogies and generally makes the model sit too low overall.

I would also reiterate the comments of LaGrange in that the bogies generally do not appear heavy/robust enough in appearance. So it might even be possible that the (supposed) height issue is a result of seemingly weak-looking bogies? As LaGrange also mentioned above, looking at the Lima 59 bogies... http://s1077.photobucket.com/user/st..._0674.jpg.html and while they lack fine detail, I would say where they do win is in their heavyweight/robust/chunkier appearance.

Add to this the missing front cowling/snowplough and again, from the above EP photo alone, this really adds to the effect of a weak-looking front end and slumping appearance. In layman's terms, it just ain't right.

YesTor · 30 July 2016, 15:40

On a positive note - rotating axle-boxes = excellent

159220 · 31 July 2016, 02:51

Thank you for sharing, I have been looking forward to seeing them and I very much like what I see. Of course compliments are often brief, constructive feedback often long.

Is it a 1st EP or 1st Shot? I do not know does this matter in terms of the steel being stiffened and the tooling set?

Captures a 59/1 very well generally. It looks like a 59/1, it feels like a 59/1 and if I stare enough I can imagine her in the very suiting Hanson livery.

Now forgive me if I have missed details, or have seen something not there. Higher res photos shall like answer a few things.

Two things which strike me the most, and said already is the chassis does not hide enough into the body and the bogies are not ‘balky’ enough. I know we discussed the latter before over the CAD images and no doubt it can be ratified. Along with the extra added details which shall be forthcoming with later samples.

Looks as you have an ideal modellers job Andy, a bag full of bits on the last photo to glue into a wonderful 59/0 and 59/2. Really does bring back to the front of the mind just how much time goes into building a model from hundreds of parts (and likely explains the labour costs!).

If I may, I have made a few comparison photos to aid us (I am PM additional/higher res if useful). Wonderful that the Digest allows us the customers to contribute to the development and refinement of the models we buy.

(I might of got carried away ..... I hope it helps!)

59.jpg:

1. I agree with other points, the bodies do seem to sit up into the model. Of course, this is 1st EP (or even 1st Shot which is hand built) and I am sure they shall be level.
2. I have to agree, I hope for the production models these grills shall be etched. I know it adds an additional cost making etches. But rather pay for it, than not have. Shall we all discuss? Price vs detail?
3. Body to chassis supports, is this what the three black ones are…otherwise missing on left from right side of model. Piping appears to run over the supports on the loco.
4. Now this is a sad one I know, life is more important than counting the details. I am embarrassed I counted this…but….the model has 19 nibs verses 18 of the prototype. From the fairly low res photo, it appears the upper rib is the extra one - with the ribs terminating before the door height on the prototype? Now I know what I have to do, go count the class 66!
5. (Highlighted area) The chassis appears to not have enough depth to it when compared to the prototype, could this just be lighting or lack of black paint?
6. Down chassis support missing on prototype.
7. Window has screw holes on prototype and a frame and gap between fixed and opening windows. Perhaps etched frames for the forward window might suit?
8. Piping appears rather predominately on the prototype here.
9. Bogies do not have enough depth. This has been pointed out here and before on the CADs. (https://digest.dapol.co.uk/forum/mai...?p=458#post458) It does not appear to be their size but their bulk/width outwards. They appear to dominate more on the prototype and have greater width out of the body/chassis?
10. Piping should terminate further along to position on arrow?
11. Piping appears rather predominately on the prototype here.

Perhaps the solution is bigger bogie frames, bigger wheels, equaling higher ride profile by around a millimetre.

59 Front.jpg:

1. WiPac lighting pods have curved corners. (Perhaps it is the low res photo of the 1st EP?)
2. Windows seem a bit on the small size. There is a smaller gap between windows and loco sides than on the 1st EP. Windows maybe 0.5 mm extra on X & Y axis?
3. I would imagine an etch grill is covering the horns?
4. The frames seem undersized and I do not see the screw holes. Perhaps an etched window frame might work better? I know etch adds price, but would look superb.
5. Coupling depression appears to be too rectangular.
6. Plates above buffers are too low. There is a clear difference between loco and 1st EP

? A thought to a solution for the discussion on the shield not being NEM coupling friendly. I note discussion on the MM 201 or HB 60 (or even BB 70) and I did some research on those solutions but I do not think they would be an ideal solution as the shielding has far more depth on these prototypes and thus it can be modeled? The shields on the 59/66 are straight long metal, thus model form I would imagine (if not detachable) are fairly fragile? Perhaps a solution would be to simply have a rectangle hole. TBH not a massive concern for me. But thought to offer a solution to which I hope we can all discuss.

590.jpg (certainly looks like a 1st shot over a 1st EP):

1. Comment made earlier, the lighting holds do seem a little oversized. Though I am sure once the wholes contain light bulbs it might remove this effect.
2. As with the 59/1, the windows seem a bit on the small size, by less and a millimetre all around. Others agree?
3. Good to see the window screw wholes. Frame, as with the 59/1 could be larger. Have you considered making it etched?

Plates above buffers and central couple depression seem right over the 59/1.

Anyway, all points are fairly minor, part from the bogies in my mind. We have a superb looking 59 here and I look forward to Hanson, AI and DBS liveries in due course. (and some wagons to haul! I have been informed the new Mendip Rail/VJG open boxes shall be the same design of JNAs as discussed over on the wagon section….)

Utterly understand that the 1st Shot/EP do not follow the CAD to the T and this is why we are all here to discuss and identify.

I look forward to further progress.
Thanks for sharing.

JeremiahBunyan · 31 July 2016, 05:45

Originally posted by 159220 View Post

59 Front.jpg:

1. WiPac lighting pods have curved corners. (Perhaps it is the low res photo of the 1st EP?)

I look forward to further progress.
Thanks for sharing.

Hi mate...It does have rounded corners!

lyneux · 31 July 2016, 14:03

Hi Andy,

Many thanks for sharing the EP shots, it's great to see concrete progress on this model. Rotating axle-boxes is a great feature and very distinctive on the prototype so well done for replicating this!

I admit to a vested interest in the 59/1 (given that I'm building a layout based on part of Whatley quarry) so I'll confine my comments to the 59/1. Please see the comments below and annotated comparison shots. Apologies for repeating a couple of issues that have already been mentioned, but I wrote this whilst sat on a plane before reading the comments in the thread above.

Front of the Loco:
1. Horn grille missing
2. Window screws possibly missing (hard to tell from the photo?)
3. Seam is a bit too narrow
4. Grab-rail has rounded corners, not right-angled
5. It looks like these etched parts haven’t had their sides folded? Could this be just down to the way that the EP has been put together?
6. Not sure what these pipes are doing here? There should be 4 vertical holes.
7. What are the four holes on the skirt doing there?
8. Missing skirt lugs/eyes
9. Missing skirt steps

Three-quarter's view:
1. Grille needs to sit flush with the roof (EP assembly issue?)
2. It’s hard to tell because the door has been ‘posed’ open, but it looks like the door is not flush with the side.
3. The 3 black stanchions have a gap at the bottom, they should run all the way to the bottom of the frame.
4. This panel seems a bit too indented
5. The grilles show only 14 rather than 16 ribs
6. The gap between this part and the upper body shouldn’t be there (EP assembly issue?)
7. The steps don’t appear to be aligned with the door? Is the bogie positioned too far forwards?
8. Extra damper shouldn’t be there for 59/1.
9. Fuel pipe should be angled inwards not outwards (EP assembly issue?)
10. The prominent pipes that wrap around the lower frame missing.
11. Grab rails missing
12. The whole centre section of the body is a removable cowling (there are photos on the web showing this removed). As such, it sits a bit proud of the rest of the body. This is not just a simple seam line as depicted.

Personal key features:
1. Must take kadee (ideally in a NEM pocket) in a hole through the skirt.
2. Switchable rear lights

If you could post some higher resolution photos we (collectively) might be able to comment further.

Kind regards,

Guy

steadfast · 31 July 2016, 17:53

Hi Andy,
I was talking to you at the NGS AGM about the N scale 59, liveries and wagon choices.
First appearances look good overall, concur with what most of the comments so far have said regarding the small details that would really tidy things up.

A couple of questions not raised so far:
- Is there scope for 001 and 201 to be released with the bell fitted at the exhaust end?
- Since others have asked about some small variations, in the EWS era all locos gained a GPS aerial above the windscreen at the cooler group end, is this variant covered?
- The 59/2s have the air pipes in a different position (except 201) and have remnants on the buffer beam from when the buckeyes were fitted in National Power days - I guess this is what the holes in the lower fairing are for? If so 001-104 don't need it.
- Are you doing both styles of exhaust? The current style with the exhaust exiting to the single grill side is the most long lived if not.

Regarding the comments on the cooler group side grills, the real thing is a mesh rather like an electric razor foil, arranged in a zigzag pattern which I guess if made as an etch would be rather fragile. There's a walkway behind this, and then the cooler group itself. You can only see through it when the shutters on this are open and only when you look through at a view perpendicular to the loco. From most angles you cannot see daylight through the grills, unlike a class 60 where everything is open behind it. There seems to be a trend these days for fitting an etch whether it gives a better quality finish or not, just to add "etched grills" to a feature list, but on the 59s the grills are surely better represented solid plastic?

On the 59/0 tool, the circular holes in the bufferbeam aren't quite right. Please see my attached pics. At the exhaust end there's one hole on the second man's side and a pair under the driver's side.
At the cooler group end this is reversed. 59005 just has the single hole at each end. Also, the marker and tail lights should both be the same diameter. The tail light (upper hole) looks about the right size.

Hope this is useful and I look forward to seeing the N models progress

Jo

Attached Files

lyneux · 31 July 2016, 20:59

Andy,

I've been looking at more photos on the plane on the way home.

A) Ignore my point 8 about the lateral damper. They were fitted to the 59/1s shortly after delivery it seems (as pointed out by Jo).

B) I'm not sure that the cooler group side grilles need to be an etch (as suggested by some) but it really ought to have the correct number of ribs! I agree with Jo: you can rarely see all the way through. From what I know about etching (having made a few myself), the etch would have to be so fine to represent the correct mesh pitch that it would be super-fragile. You'd have a hell of a time forming it into the right shape too.

C) Regarding 159220's comment 6: "Down chassis support missing on prototype.". He is incorrect. You have got this right! I'll attach photographic proof.

Finally, as a suggestion, perhaps you could split the photos into 59/0, 59/1 and 59/2? Since there are a host of detail differences on the sub-classes it would be good to understand which photo is supposed to represent which sub-class so that we don't make the wrong comments.

Guy

IMAGE 1: Cooler group grille (showing very fine mesh pitch):

IMAGE 2: 59/1 showing triangular support is present at both ends of the chassis (point C above). Also of interest is the engine cowling lying on the ground. You can see just how prominent the seam is on the loco where this attaches.

Link to shot showing cowling removed: https://www.flickr.com/photos/354760...7639746170234/

Andy Dapol · 1 August 2016, 20:55

I shall respond in more detail individually a little later, but wished to acknowledge and thank all who have made comments so far It is much appreciated, we have such a wealth of knowledge here.
I will comment on each posting shortly.
Regarding the variations, I have a 'kit' of parts and body mouldings for each major sub-type on my desk which I need to check and assemble, and there will be more information that will expand on the brief posting I made, in a couple of weeks time (rather busy travel and meeting schedule in the interim)

Andy Dapol · 2 August 2016, 18:24

I hope the comments I've posted above clarify some of the points raised. The purpose of producing and publicising the model at this stage is for further development and refinement. It's far from a 'what you see is what you get stage' Overall these are extremely useful for the review of the model. Once reviewed, I shall post a set of notes and further photos for debate.
In the meantime, we welcome further comments and observations, whilst I will try to acknowledge and/ore discuss however, I am travelling for the next 10 days and there maybe a delay before I can respond, your patience is appreciated.

steadfast · 2 August 2016, 19:04

Over time I've managed to measure bits and pieces. There may be some small discrepancies due to being measured by one guy with a tape measure, but they are accurate enough to hopefully help people's assessments of things like windscreen proportions etc.

Jo

Announcement

OO Class 59 E.P.

OO Class 59 E.P.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment